Grant of bail for theft where charge-sheet is filed and accused lack significant criminal antecedents.

The applicants sought regular bail following their arrest in connection with Crime No. 236/2025 at Police Station Mujgahan, Raipur.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of 22–23 October 2025, unknown persons committed theft of petrol, a mobile phone, and cash amounting to ₹20,500 from the office of "Arti Fuels" petrol pump.

Applicant Toman Sahu was arrested on 07.12.2025 based on a memorandum statement.

Applicants Kunal Sahu and Vinod Nishad were arrested on 22.12.2025.

Defense counsel argued that Toman Sahu had no criminal antecedents and no recoveries were made from him.

The other two applicants had one pending case each where they were already on bail.

Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the offense and the status of the investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It considered the gravity of offenses defined under Sections 331(4) [Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking], 305 [Theft in dwelling house, etc.], and 3(5) [Common intention] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court also applied procedural conditions under Sections 209 [Punishment for non-appearance], 269 [Attendance of accused], 351 [Examination of accused], and 84 [Proclamation for person absconding] of the BNSS to ensure the integrity of the trial.

The Court weighed the nature and gravity of the allegations against the period of incarceration already served (since December 2025) and the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation was substantially complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

In the case of Toman Sahu, the court observed the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that his arrest was based solely on a memorandum statement.

Regarding Kunal Sahu and Vinod Nishad, the court took into account that although they had one prior criminal antecedent, they had been granted bail in that matter by a previous court order dated 04.02.2026.

Consequently, the court found that further detention was not necessitated.

The Court ordered the release of Toman Sahu, Kunal Sahu, and Vinod Nishad upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to strict conditions: they must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally during key trial stages (opening of case, framing of charges, and Section 351 BNSS statements), and must comply with all trial court proceedings.

Any default would allow the trial court to treat it as an abuse of the liberty of bail.